Musculoskeletal ultrasound--a state of the art review in rheumatology. Part 1: Current controversies and issues in the development of musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology

As we begin the 21st century, musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) is routinely used by an increasing number of rheumatologists throughout Europe and there is a growing interest in the application of MSUS in rheumatological practice in the UK. MSUS allows high-resolution, real-time imaging of articular and periarticular structures and has the advantages of being non-radioactive, inexpensive, portable, highly acceptable to patients and repeatable. There are a number of critical issues that need to be addressed in order to develop the role of MSUS within rheumatology. These include issues of equipment costs, training and certification and the relationship of rheumatologists and radiologists in advancing the field of MSUS. Rheumatologists must demonstrate the relevance of MSUS in their clinical practice through high-quality research. Emerging technologies such as power Doppler and 3D imaging will further improve imaging capabilities and the range of clinical applications of MSUS systems. This paper reviews how MSUS in rheumatology has evolved and the controversies and issues that rheumatologists must now address in developing MSUS as an indispensable, everyday clinical tool.     

Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in routine rheumatology practice: data from Central and Eastern European countries

The main aim was to gain structured insight into the use of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) in routine rheumatology practices in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In a cross-sectional, observational, international, multicenter survey, a questionnaire was sent to investigational sites in CEE countries. Data on all subsequent routine MSUS examinations, site characteristics, MSUS equipment, and investigators were collected over 6 months or up to 100 examinations per center. A total of 95 physicians at 44 sites in 9 countries provided information on a total of 2810 MSUS examinations. The most frequent diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (34.8 and 14.9 % of cases, respectively). Mean number of joints examined was 6.8. MSUS was most frequently performed for diagnostic purposes (58 %), particularly in patients with undifferentiated arthritis, suspected soft tissue disorders, or osteoarthritis (73.0–85.3 %). In RA patients, 56.3 % of examinations were conducted to monitor disease activity. Nearly all investigations (99 %) had clinical implications, while the results of 78.6 % of examinations (51.6–99.0 %) were deemed useful for patient education. This first standardized multicountry survey performed in CEEs provided a structured documentation of the routine MSUS use in participating countries. The majority of MSUS examinations were performed for diagnostic purposes, whereas one-third was conducted to monitor disease activity in RA. A majority of examinations had an impact on clinical decision making and were also found to be useful for patient education.     

Challenges to expanding the clinical application of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) among rheumatologists: from a second survey in Japan

Abstract

Our previous survey in 2008 revealed that only 22% of Japanese rheumatologists used musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) for patient management, because of insufficient educational opportunities. To clarify the current state of MSUS usage and to identify further challenges, we conducted a second survey between October 2010 through January 2011 by sending questionnaires to 200 randomly selected Japanese rheumatologists, consisting of 100 participants in a meeting in 2009 on imaging in rheumatic diseases and 100 board-certified rheumatologists. Among the respondents, a majority (85 and 67%, respectively) used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MSUS users had increased from 32 to 60% of meeting participants and from 11 to 27% of other rheumatologists. The majority of MSUS users had begun using MSUS within the previous 3 years. Whereas most respondents in the previous survey had been self-taught, in the current survey many had attended training courses or had received informal training from skilled users. Despite an increase in skills and equipment ownership, obstacles to implementing MSUS remained, most prominently a lack of time. In conclusion, training courses and informal training have contributed to the popularization of MSUS in Japan. To further increase MSUS usage, additional training opportunities and education about the advantages of MSUS will be needed.     

Musculoskeletal ultrasound training in rheumatology: the Belfast experience

OBJECTIVES: Despite the increasing use of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) as a clinical tool in rheumatology, there is no consensus yet regarding the standards required to achieve a basic level of competence in the use of this imaging technique. A number of sonographers worldwide are developing curricula and standardizing teaching methods in order to improve training in MSUS for rheumatologists. In the meantime, clinicians are devising informal means of training in order to acquire these new skills. Here we describe the informal team approach to MSUS training adopted by a group of rheumatologists from the Regional Rheumatology Centre in Belfast, UK. METHODS: Over a 5-yr period, eight rheumatologists from Musgrave Park Hospital in Belfast used a variety of means to learn the basic skills of MSUS. RESULTS: Seven of the team underwent a formal assessment of their competency in a practical examination devised by an experienced sonographer. All were judged to have attained a basic competency in MSU. CONCLUSIONS: This Belfast experience shows what can be achieved despite the absence of formal MSUS training. Nevertheless, the development of recognized training programmes and international standards of competency are important goals on the way to achieving more widespread acceptance of MSUS as a useful tool in everyday clinical practice.     

Musculoskeletal ultrasound--a state of the art review in rheumatology. Part 2: Clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology

Rheumatologists remain divided on whether they should introduce musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) into their clinical practice. A central issue in the application of MSUS in clinical rheumatology is the need for proof of clinical relevance and improved patient care. There is now accumulating evidence that MSUS improves clinical diagnosis and intervention skills. High-resolution ultrasound is superior to clinical examination in the diagnosis and localization of joint and bursal effusion and synovitis. MSUS is the imaging modality of choice for the diagnosis of tendon pathology. MSUS is seven times more sensitive than plain radiography in the detection of rheumatoid erosions, allowing earlier diagnosis of progressive rheumatoid arthritis. Ligament, muscle, peripheral nerve and cartilage pathology can also be readily demonstrated by MSUS. There is exciting evidence that MSUS may potentially be used by rheumatologists to non-invasively diagnose and monitor not just joint and muscle disease but also nerve compression syndromes, scleroderma, vasculitis and Sj?gren's syndrome. Joint aspiration and injection accuracy can be improved by MSUS, with initial evidence confirming improved efficacy. As the number of rheumatologists performing MSUS increases and the technical capabilities of MSUS improve, there is likely to be a growing number of proven clinical indications for the application of MSUS in rheumatology practice. This paper reviews the evidence for the application of MSUS in rheumatology.     

The 12th International Rheumatology Symposium in Tokyo

Abstract

We aimed to describe how often Japanese rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS), and how they are currently being trained in the use of this imaging technique. Questionnaires were sent to 200 Japanese rheumatologists: 100 to participants attending the first Scientific Meeting of the Japanese Society of Imaging in Rheumatic Diseases in 2006, and 100 to other randomly selected rheumatologists certified by the Japan College of Rheumatology. A total of 139 questionnaires (74 from meeting participants, 65 from randomly selected rheumatologists) were completed and analyzed. Twenty-four of the 74 respondents (32.4%) in the meeting participants group used MSUS imaging for patient management, while only 7 of the 65 respondents (10.8%) in the certified rheumatologists group used MSUS imaging for patient management. Sixty-five of the 74 respondents (87.8%) in the meeting participants group and 54 of the 65 respondents (83.1%) in the certified rheumatologists group considered MSUS to be a useful tool. Only a minority of respondents used MSUS in the management of their patients. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Japanese rheumatologists would prefer future training in the form of intensive courses and training sessions.     

Challenges to expanding the clinical application of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) among rheumatologists: from a second survey in Japan

Our previous survey in 2008 revealed that only 22% of Japanese rheumatologists used musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) for patient management, because of insufficient educational opportunities. To clarify the current state of MSUS usage and to identify further challenges, we conducted a second survey between October 2010 through January 2011 by sending questionnaires to 200 randomly selected Japanese rheumatologists, consisting of 100 participants in a meeting in 2009 on imaging in rheumatic diseases and 100 board-certified rheumatologists. Among the respondents, a majority (85 and 67%, respectively) used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MSUS users had increased from 32 to 60% of meeting participants and from 11 to 27% of other rheumatologists. The majority of MSUS users had begun using MSUS within the previous 3 years. Whereas most respondents in the previous survey had been self-taught, in the current survey many had attended training courses or had received informal training from skilled users. Despite an increase in skills and equipment ownership, obstacles to implementing MSUS remained, most prominently a lack of time. In conclusion, training courses and informal training have contributed to the popularization of MSUS in Japan. To further increase MSUS usage, additional training opportunities and education about the advantages of MSUS will be needed.     

Use of musculoskeletal ultrasound in Japan: a survey of practicing rheumatologists

We aimed to describe how often Japanese rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS), and how they are currently being trained in the use of this imaging technique. Questionnaires were sent to 200 Japanese rheumatologists: 100 to participants attending the first Scientific Meeting of the Japanese Society of Imaging in Rheumatic Diseases in 2006, and 100 to other randomly selected rheumatologists certified by the Japan College of Rheumatology. A total of 139 questionnaires (74 from meeting participants, 65 from randomly selected rheumatologists) were completed and analyzed. Twenty-four of the 74 respondents (32.4%) in the meeting participants group used MSUS imaging for patient management, while only 7 of the 65 respondents (10.8%) in the certified rheumatologists group used MSUS imaging for patient management. Sixty-five of the 74 respondents (87.8%) in the meeting participants group and 54 of the 65 respondents (83.1%) in the certified rheumatologists group considered MSUS to be a useful tool. Only a minority of respondents used MSUS in the management of their patients. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Japanese rheumatologists would prefer future training in the form of intensive courses and training sessions.     

Self‐directed learning of basic musculoskeletal ultrasound among rheumatologists in the United States

Objective

Because musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) is highly user dependent, we aimed to establish whether non‐mentored learning of MSUS is sufficient to achieve the same level of diagnostic accuracy and scanning reliability as has been achieved by rheumatologists recognized as international experts in MSUS.

Methods

A group of 8 rheumatologists with more experience in MSUS and 8 rheumatologists with less experience in MSUS participated in an MSUS exercise to assess patients with musculoskeletal abnormalities commonly seen in a rheumatology practice. Patients' established diagnoses were obtained from chart review (gout, osteoarthritis, rotator cuff syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and seronegative arthritis). Two examining groups were formed, each composed of 4 less experienced and 4 more experienced examiners. Each group scanned 1 predefined body region (hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee, or ankle) in each of 8 patients, blinded to medical history and physical examination. Structural abnormalities were noted with dichotomous answers, and an open‐ended answer was used for the final diagnosis.

Results

Less experienced and more experienced examiners achieved the same diagnostic accuracy (US‐established diagnosis versus chart review diagnosis). The interrater reliability for tissue pathology was slightly higher for more experienced versus less experienced examiners (κ = 0.43 versus κ = 0.34; P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Non‐mentored training in MSUS can lead to the achievement of diagnostic accuracy in MSUS comparable to that achieved by highly experienced international experts. Reliability may increase slightly with additional experience. Further study is needed to determine the minimal training requirement to achieve proficiency in MSUS.     

Attitudes of United Kingdom rheumatologists to musculoskeletal ultrasound practice and training

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to describe what clinical rheumatologists currently use musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) for, how they are currently training and is the first study to survey rheumatologists to determine their preferences for MSUS training implementation. METHODS: 250 questionnaires were distributed at the British Society of Rheumatology Annual General Meeting (BSR AGM), 2005. RESULTS: 126 (50%) of questionnaires were completed by UK rheumatologists and were analysed. 117 (93%) of the respondents use MSUS imaging for patient management, with 41 (33%) indicating they perform MSUS themselves. Only two (2%) performed MSUS for >5 years. Rheumatologists use MSUS to image all peripheral joints-particularly the hands and feet-to assess joint and soft tissue inflammation and to guide joint injections. Lack of training in MSUS was the principal reason for not performing MSUS. Respondents expressed a preference for future training to be via a programme of regular sessions, with training delivered by either consultant radiologists or rheumatologists. Mentoring was the educational tool and assessment method of choice. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents use MSUS in the management of their patients, with a third performing MSUS themselves. The report indicates rheumatologists' preferences on how training should be delivered in the future.     

Situación de la ecografía en la reumatología española 2012

ObjectiveTo know the situation of ultrasound in Spanish rheumatology.MethodsA National survey addressed to all rheumatology units in hospitals with at least 200 beds. The questionnaire studied: a) the availability and the model of the ultrasound equipment, b) the degree of training, c) the purpose and areas of ultrasound examination, d) the usefulness, and e) the relevance of ultrasound in the training of residents.Results169 units of the 234 surveyed physicians answered the questionnaire. The availability of ultrasound equipment was high (90%), 38.7% of rheumatologists use ultrasound, although half of the units had a rheumatologist especially dedicated to performing them. Training plans have enabled the incorporation of ultrasound, but there are areas that could be improved. The utility in routine clinical practice was scored at 7.8 (0-10), and ultrasound was integrated in the diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. There is a broad consensus on the need to include ultrasound in the training of residents. Administration is adding ultrasound to the portfolio of specialty services.ConclusionsIn just 15 years, ultrasound has become available in 90% of rheumatology units from being previously inexistent. Its use is extensive, integrated into clinical practice and linked to the decision making processes. Training plans have been effective, but areas for improvement were identified, and there is a broad consensus on the need to integrate ultrasound in residents’ training.     

Calidad percibida de formación en ecografía musculoesquelética en los servicios de reumatología españoles

Background and objectiveUltrasound has been included in the training of residents in rheumatology in recent years, as a result of its increased use in daily clinical practice. Our objective is to evaluate the perceived quality of ultrasound training of residents in rheumatology services in Spain.Material and methodsOnline survey aimed at rheumatologists who began their training in rheumatology between 2009 and 2019.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine rheumatologists participated in the survey, of which 97.1% had at least one ultrasound machine in their training centre. Up to 51.1% performed a rotation in ultrasound and 56% had an ultrasound consultation. Access to SER courses was high (87.8%) while access to EULAR courses was limited (17.3%) and up to 69.1% of residents did not complete the competency accreditation. Training in evaluation of inflammatory joint activity, entheses and microcrystalline diseases received the highest scores. Evaluation of ultrasound training during the residency was good in 36% of cases, fair in 28.1%, poor in 18% and excellent in 12.9%. Of those surveyed, 88% consider their clinical practice as a rheumatologist to have improved.ConclusionsMost residents have performed ultrasound rotations. Participation in SER ultrasound courses is high and moderate in EULAR courses, while only a minority completed the competency accreditation. The overall degree of satisfaction with training in ultrasound during residency is good and, in the opinion of residents, contributes to the improvement of their skills as rheumatologists.     

Clinical usefulness and patient satisfaction with a musculoskeletal ultrasound clinic: results of a 6-month pilot service in a Rheumatology Unit

There is no agreement among the rheumatology community in how to implement the musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) technique in the Rheumatology Divisions. To test the perceived usefulness of the MSUS, under consensus indications, for referring colleagues for the clinical management of their patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and to score the satisfaction level of the patients with different aspects of the ultrasound (US) examination, after attend to the MSUS clinic. A written questionnaire-based survey regarding the usefulness and satisfaction with the implementation of a pilot MSUS clinic in a Rheumatology Unit. Over a 6-month period, 43 patients attended 10 MSUS clinics. Referral agreed indications were: US assisting in early/subclinical diagnosis (35 %), decision making with patient treatment (44 %), monitoring of disease activity/treatment response (39 %) and US-guided injection (11 %). Average scores of the referrers regarding usefulness of the information provided for the US for these indications were 8.0, 8.3, 8.7 and 8.6, respectively, with a high score of 9.0 regarding the valuable support of the US for the management of their patients with IA. Patient satisfaction scores in responders (44 %) were averaged 9.5 and higher for receiving an adequate explanation of the US procedure, indications, US findings and their significance, lack of discomfort and length of the appointment. The average score was slightly lower (8.5) for the waiting time frame for the appointment for the MSUS examination. The referrers expressed a perception of usefulness of our pilot US clinic, under previous consensus indications, for the clinical management of their patients with IA. In addition, this MSUS clinic seemed to show a good acceptability and a high satisfaction scores for the patients.     

Ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis in US patients with back pain: identifying providers involved and factors associated with rheumatology referral delay

This study aimed to identify providers involved in diagnosing ankylosing spondylitis (AS) following back pain diagnosis in the USA and to identify factors leading to the delay in rheumatology referrals. The Truven Health MarketScan® US Commercial Database was searched for patients aged 18–64 years with back pain diagnosis in a non-rheumatology setting followed by AS diagnosis in any setting during January 2000–December 2012. Patients with a rheumatologist visit on or before AS diagnosis were considered referred. Cox regression was used to determine factors associated with referral time after adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, physician specialty, drug therapy, and imaging procedures. Of 3336 patients included, 1244 (37 %) were referred to and diagnosed by rheumatologists; the others were diagnosed in primary care (25.7 %), chiropractic/physical therapy (7 %), orthopedic surgery (3.8 %), pain clinic (3.6 %), acute care (3.4 %), and other (19.2 %) settings. Median time from back pain diagnosis to rheumatology referral was 307 days and from first rheumatologist visit to AS diagnosis was 28 days. Referred patients were more likely to be younger (hazard ratio [HR]?=?0.986; p?<?0.0001), male (HR?=?1.15; p?=?0.0163), diagnosed with uveitis (HR?=?1.49; p?=?0.0050), referred by primary care physicians (HR?=?1.96; p?<?0.0001), prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (HR?=?1.55; p?<?0.0001), disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (HR?=?1.33; p?<?0.0001), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (HR?=?1.40; p?=?0.0036), and to have had spinal/pelvic X-ray prior to referral (HR?=?1.28; p?=?0.0003). During 2000–2012, most patients with AS were diagnosed outside of rheumatology practices. The delay before referral to rheumatology was 10 months; AS diagnosis generally followed within a month. Earlier referral of patients with AS signs and symptoms may lead to more timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment.     

Clinical rheumatology training of primary care physicians: the resident perspective

Because nonspecialized physicians provide care for the vast majority of patients with rheumatic disorders, we surveyed 327 internal medicine and family medicine residents with respect to the nature of their training in rheumatology. Although most internal medicine residents had access to rheumatologists for training and had taken formal rheumatology rotations, this was often not the case for family medicine residents. Deficiencies evident in both types of programs included limited access to rheumatology electives; insufficient exposure to certain major categories of rheumatic disease, e.g., the spondyloarthropathies and systemic autoimmune disorders; and lack of direct participatory experience in orthopedics, rehabilitation, and psychosocial aspects of rheumatology.     

Magnetic resonance imaging versus musculoskeletal ultrasound in the evaluation of temporomandibular joint in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aim of the work

To evaluate temporomandibular joint (TMJ) affection in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) and to correlate the findings with clinical manifestations, disease activity and functional status.

Utility and feasibility of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSK US) in rheumatology practice in Canada: needs assessment

The utility of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK US) is being extensively explored and evaluated amongst European rheumatologists. However, utilization of MSK US by rheumatologists in Canada is much less common. This study aimed to evaluate the current use of MSK US in Canadian rheumatology practice, to determine beliefs and attitudes towards MSK US, and to determine factors that may encourage or limit its use. A 13-question needs assessment questionnaire was developed. All Canadian rheumatologists were invited via e-mail to participate in the survey. The overall response rate was 156/470 (33%). Fifty-one percent of participants used MSK US in their clinical practice. Lack of training appeared to be the main obstacle to its current use. Eighty-three percent believed that MSK US should be performed by rheumatologists and expressed a willingness to learn the technique. Skills offering greatest clinical utility were the assessment of inflammatory arthritis in small joints (i.e., hands (metacarpophalyngeal and proximal interphalangeal joints), wrists, feet (metatarsophalyngeal), shoulders, and ankles. Limited available time, equipment costs, and difficulties with billing were the main obstacles to MSK US utilization in the clinical setting. There is a great level of interest in learning and applying MSK US in Canadian rheumatology practice. The balance between added clinical value and lack of remuneration, equipment associated costs, and time to complete training is the major limiting factor influencing rheumatologists' willingness to take on MSK US. Training programs must be relevant to rheumatologists' needs before MSK US will be adopted into routine clinical practice in Canada.     

Analysis of referral letters to rheumatology consultation in Tunisia

Aim of the work

Our objective was to analyze the content and quality of referral letters to rheumatology consultation.

Social persuasion in rheumatology: a randomized trial of testimonials on television in the rheumatology clinic waiting room to increase attendance for multidisciplinary education

Multidisciplinary self-management programs are important in inflammatory arthritis as adjunctive treatment. Patients often have excuses as to why they do not attend these programs. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an intervention of televised testimonials from rheumatologists and allied health professionals increases attendance at a multidisciplinary education day for rheumatology patients seen in a large university hospital clinic. This was an RCT of intervention: playing televised interviews in the waiting room where rheumatology patients were seen versus no TV. There was a total of 6 months (3 months with and 3 without the televised interview playing). All eligible patients who attended the rheumatology outpatient clinic were then tracked to determine whether they attended a subsequent education day over the next 10 months. The sample size was calculated to have a 15 % increase in attendance at the education days. There was a 20 % increase in attendees at the multidisciplinary education days for patients who saw the televised testimonials. Sixty-three patients who viewed the testimonials (2.17 % of 2,908) attended the education day compared to 39 who did not receive the intervention (1.80 % of 2,168); however, the increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.36). Attendance of eligible patients increased using televised testimonials; however, the increase was not significant as the rates of attendance were still very low in both groups. Many eligible patients did not attend the program. Other interventions are necessary to encourage attendance in a multidisciplinary program.